Western University
Scholarship@Western
Undergraduate Honors Theses
Psychology
Winter 4-30-2015
Teaching towards self-regulation: The impact of
stress, self-efficacy, and motivation
Nathan Serratore
King's University College, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/psychK_uht
Part of the Psychology Commons
Recommended Citation
Serratore, Nathan, "Teaching towards self-regulation: The impact of stress, self-efficacy, and motivation" (2015). Undergraduate Honors
Theses. Paper 19.
This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology at Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Undergraduate Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Running head: OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
1
Teaching towards self-regulation: The impact of stress, self-efficacy, and motivation
by
Nathan Serratore
Honours Thesis
Department of Psychology
King’s University College at Western University
London, Canada
April 2015
Thesis Advisor: Dr. Lynda Hutchinson, Ph.D.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
2
Abstract
The present study explores how teacher stress, self-efficacy, and motivation influence teacher’s
use of practices associated with self-regulated learning (SRL). Data from 87 elementary and
highschool school teachers (79 females; Mean Age = 45 years; SD = 9.64 years) was employed
to explore relationships between teacher self-efficacy, motivation, stress (e.g., time management,
work related stressors, professional distress, professional investment, and stress from
maintaining student discipline and motivation) along with their individual and combined impacts
on the promotion of SRL. An exploratory factor analysis was computed in Mplus (L.K. Muthén
& B.O. Muthén, 2012) to examine the underlying structure of the instructional practices
associated with SRL questionnaire. Results demonstrated that the measure supported a twofactor model of instructional practices associated with SRL (RMSEA = <.08, CFI >.95). Pearson
product-moment correlations indicated statistically significant and positive relationships between
SRL and self-efficacy, as well as between SRL and motivation. Aspects of teacher stress were
also found to negatively and significantly correlate with self-efficacy, motivation, and SRL.
Results from a multiple mediation analysis of stress predicting opportunities for SRL indicated a
partial mediation of both self-efficacy and motivation. The implications of these results are
discussed, including suggestions for educational administration regarding the implementation of
future learning initiatives, and support for teachers’ understanding of SRL.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
3
Teaching towards self-regulation: The impact of stress, self-efficacy, and motivation
In recent years, Canadian teachers have reported increasingly severe and more common
signs of stress and burnout associated with their profession (Harris, 2011). These results have
been linked to several aspects of the teaching profession which place a significant amount of
responsibility and pressure on classroom teachers. Specifically, teachers report unrealistic
demands, inadequate resources, new program implementations with little in-servicing or training,
curriculum changes or restructurings, insufficient preparation time, perceived pressures to
become involved with extracurricular activities outside of regular duties, and long work hours
(Harris, 2011). In addition, demands for attention to special education programs, requirements to
formulate and follow individualized education plans, special requirements of split grades, and
administrative work contribute to teacher stress. Recent research has associated these pressures
and stressors with harmful psychological effects which may serve to negatively impact teachers’
psychological wellbeing and classroom performance. These effects include depressed mood,
fatigue, increased potential for burnout, and depersonalized teaching methods wherein teachers
compensate for these overwhelming demands by opting for straightforward content delivery
rather than personable instruction with attention paid to individual goals and needs (Steinhardt,
Jaggars, Faulk, & Gloria, 2011; Howard & Johnson, 2004; Mearns & Cain, 2003; Collie, Shapka
& Perry, 2012). Therefore, there is a need to recognize and formulate solutions for these
concerns. This is important not only for teachers and administration, but also for the children
whose education is affected.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
4
Self-Regulation and Self-Regulated Learning
In recent years, Canadian school boards have indicated that a primary goal of education is
to support learners’ development of and engagement in self-regulation (SR) in school (Ontario
Curriculum, 2013; Growing Success, 2010; Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014; BC Ministry of
Education, 2014). Self-regulation involves the integration of executive functions (i.e., working
memory, behavioral inhibition, attention focusing) and higher level cognitive processes (i.e.,
metacognition, motivation, and strategic action) to respond to features of the environment and
attain goals. In Educational Psychology, SR is studied as self-regulated learning (SRL),
involving learners’ application of metacognition, motivation for learning, and strategic action to
learn and achieve in school (Perry, 2013). Students are metacognitive when they analyze the
demands of the task in relation to their strengths and weaknesses, and regulate their behaviour
accordingly to optimize their learning. Students demonstrate motivation for learning when they
value progress and deep understanding, and are willing to attempt challenges to develop their
learning. Students show strategic action when effectively implementing a solution selected from
a repertoire of strategies to achieve a goal or complete a task (Perry, Hutchinson, & Thauberger,
2008).
Learners’ engagement in SRL is associated with a wide range of positive outcomes,
including more satisfying relationships with teachers and peers, motivation for learning, and high
levels of academic success (Perry, Hutchinson, & Thauberger, 2007; Perry, 1998). However,
students who do not engage in SRL are more likely to experience negative academic outcomes
(e.g., low motivation for learning, low self-efficacy). Research has indicated that the particular
tasks and instructional practices that teachers employ in classrooms have been linked to
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
5
children’s development of and engagement in SRL in school (Hutchinson, 2013; Moos &
Ringdal, 2012; Perry, 1998; Turner, 1995). At least eight features of classroom instruction have
been identified as those that can provide opportunities for learners’ development of and
engagement in SRL. These include opportunities for students to engage in tasks that are complex
by design (e.g., providing opportunities to complete tasks that require multiple learning goals,
extended timeframes, and/or multiple cognitive processes), make meaningful choices and control
challenges (e.g., deciding who in a group is the pest person to complete particular tasks for a
project), engage in non-threatening self-evaluations (e.g., having the opportunity to reflect on
previous work to inform future learning) and receive instrumental support from teachers and
peers (e.g., having the opportunity to uninhibitedly ask questions and receive personalized
guidance to assist learning; Perry, Hutchinson, & Thauberger, 2008). Moreover, students in
classrooms that are highly supportive of SRL typically participate in a classroom culture which
places value on being part of a community of learners (e.g., having the opportunity to work in a
group and in collaboration with peers; Hutchinson, 2013; Perry, 1998).
For example, Perry (1998) conducted an in-depth study involving 5 classroom teachers
and their 94 grade 2 and grade 3 children. The study occurred in three phases over a six month
time frame. In phase 1, teachers were observed in classrooms and their tasks and activities were
scored to reflect the extent to which they promoted SRL. Specifically, the researchers noted
opportunities for students to make choices, have control over challenges, engage in selfevaluation, have opportunities to provide and receive peer support as well as receive proper
teacher support. In phase two, the students reported their perceptions of the presence of the
activity reflecting the promotion of SRL as listed above. In phase three, the researchers assessed
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
6
participating children’s SRL. Results indicated that children in high-SRL classrooms reported
their acknowledgement of greater support from teachers, comfort in asking for help, their
opportunities to make choices, have control over aspects of their education, along with other
indicators of the promotion of SRL to a greater degree than did children from low-SRL
classrooms (Perry, 1998). In phase 3’s assessment of SRL, features of classroom instruction
predicted significant outcomes in children’s SRL and academic performance. When presented
with a writing task, students in high-SRL classrooms children were observed employing
effective strategies that helped them to complete a learning task. Children were working
independently and appeared comfortable seeking help and support from their teachers. Children
in these classrooms also reported a sense of satisfaction in their accomplishments. In contrast,
students from low-SRL classrooms showed fewer opportunities for engaging in metacognition,
motivation for learning, and strategic action. Children were less focused on self-improvement,
reported more concern regarding their grades and their teachers’ opinion of them rather than to
their own development, and were less comfortable seeking support. Strategies to complete the
given task were limited in numbers and diversity, and students had more difficulty implementing
an effective approach to complete their work (Perry, 1998).
In a more recent study, Samarapungavan, Patrick, & Mantzicopolous (2011) studied 185
kindergarten students from four schools. Of these schools, two participated in the
implementation of an inquiry-based science teaching system, and two did not. This system is part
of a larger research initiative, the scientific literacy project (SLP). Within SLP, kindergarten
teachers are encouraged to simply guide student inquiry with encouragement positive support,
freedom to make choices regarding the direction of learning, and control over these challenges.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
7
In addition, peer interactions, mutual support, self-evaluations, communities of learning, and
effective support from teachers are central elements to a successful engagement with SLP
(Samarapungavan, Patrick, & Mantzicopolous, 2011).
SLP organizes teaching strategies utilizing several key concepts which equate those
promoted in SRL. Results indicate that those who were in the classrooms who utilized SLP made
more substantial gains in their scientific knowledge and in the processes of scientific inquiry
compared to those who did not. These children developed complex understandings of the
material, and developed skills that they were effective at implementing when faced with new
problems. In addition, these children expressed greater interest in science, viewed themselves as
more competent in the subject, and were more motivated to continue learning (Samarapungavan,
Patrick, & Mantzicopolous, 2011). Findings from this study corroborate Perry’s (1998) results
and demonstrate the academic and cognitive benefits associated with SRL. Altogether, these
studies demonstrate that elementary school children benefit from tasks and teaching practices
that provide opportunities for SRL to learn in classrooms. However, research is needed to
examine how teacher level variables such as experience and stress, may impact teachers’ use of
features of instruction and practices associated with SRL.
While the findings of the two studies described above (Perry, 1998; Samarapungavan,
Patrick, & Mantzicopolous, 2011) are quite promising in terms of endorsing the importance of
SRL in classrooms, neither of them consider factors which may have served to inhibit teachers’
capacities to provide their students with opportunities to engage in SRL. The present research
will work from the understandings of SRL’s importance, as established in these studies, to
examine teaching variables which may inhibit the promotion of SRL.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
8
Studies (Perry, 1998; Perry & VandeKamp, 2002; Perry, Phillips, & Hutchinson, 2006)
have indicated that teachers report having goals to support students’ SRL, but are unsure of the
tasks and practices that support it. Moreover, the research indicates that teaching towards SRL is
demanding of teachers because it requires a highly student-centered and personalized approach
to learning and instruction. Teachers who employ SRL strategies in their teaching understand the
needs of their learners and have confidence in their expertise (Brown & Campione, 1996; Perry,
Phillips, & Hutchinson, 2006). These teachers know and understand which teaching strategies
they can employ in their classrooms to meet the individual needs of children and addresses a
range of zones of proximal development so they can monitor individual students’ progress and
intervene when needed. In other words, teachers who promote SRL in their classrooms possess
qualities which have been associated with confidence, self-efficacy and motivation to teach.
Teachers use features of classroom instruction associated with SRL understand when learners
need to take on challenges in their learning independently so students can apply strategies to
solve problems effectively. Finally, research has demonstrated that teachers who are effective in
supporting SRL employ Vygotskian and neo-Vygotskian models of learning and instruction
which provide instrumental forms of support and scaffolding using co-regulation (i.e.,
opportunities for an teacher or peer with expertise to provide guidance to a learner) and shared
regulation (i.e., opportunities for children to work together as learners with shared expertise to
complete work) so that learners may accomplish challenging goals (Perry, 2013).
Studies indicate that elementary school teachers report a number of stressors that may
impact how effective they are implementing tasks and practices that support students’ SRL for
classroom learning and achievement. Hence, the purpose of the present study is to examine how
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
9
teachers’ willingness and comfort using practices associated with SRL is related to and effected
by aspects of stress, self-efficacy, and motivation, which are reviewed below.
Teacher Stress
In this study, teacher stress is defined as “the experience by a teacher of unpleasant,
negative emotions such as anger, anxiety, tension, frustration, or depression, resulting from some
aspect of their work as a teacher” (Kryiacou, 2001). Recent reports have indicated that Canadian
teachers report high levels of job stress (Harris, 2011) and this is associated with poor
psychological outcomes for teachers. In fact, high levels of chronic and severe teacher stress
have been associated with depressive symptoms including depressed mood, feelings of guilt,
worthlessness, helplessness, loss of appetite and restless sleep (Steinhardt, Jaggars, Faulk, &
Gloria, 2011; Fimian, 1985). Research has demonstrated that increased stress is associated with
higher and more prevalent emotional exhaustion and a reliance on more depersonalized
classroom teaching strategies (Howard & Johnson, 2004; Mearns & Cain, 2003).
For example, Mearn and Cain (2003) employed self-report data from 86 American school
teachers to study how teacher stress is related to teachers’ psychological well-being. The
researchers administered measures of teacher stress, negative mood regulation expectancies,
coping skills, levels of distress, and burnout. Results demonstrated that teacher stress had a
statistically significant impact on teachers’ efficacy for teaching. Specifically, high levels of
stressed were linked to lower levels of student-centered and personalized approaches to learning
and teaching. In fact, stress predicted emotion-focused and avoidant coping strategies,
manifestations of distress, as well as burnout (Mearns & Cain, 2003). These results suggest that
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
10
high levels of teacher stress can reduce teaching efficacy and in turn, reduce teachers’ use of
student-centered teaching practices, including those that have been linked to SRL.
The effects of stress on the implementation of other teaching styles have been
documented. Recently, Collie, Shapka, and Perry (2012), utilized data from 664 teachers from
Ontario and British Columbia representing 17 school districts. Participants responded to an
online questionnaire which measured work stress, teaching efficacy, job satisfaction, and school
climate. In addition, a measure of social-emotional learning (SEL) was conducted, which
included measures of teacher comfort and self-efficacy regarding their abilities to implement
practices of SEL, their perceptions of encouragement and support for implementing SEL in their
classroom, along with their commitment to and motivation for offering opportunities for SEL.
Findings demonstrated that teachers’ comfort in teaching SEL was negatively associated
with stress relating to student behaviour and discipline. Specifically, teachers who reported lower
stress caused by poor student behaviour were more likely to be comfortable teaching SEL. In
addition, SEL was shown to be positively associated with teaching efficacy and job satisfaction.
Also, findings demonstrated that job support from colleagues showed mixed results. Specifically,
when collaboration was implemented in a way where stress from student behaviour was not
increased, it was positively associated to teaching efficacy. Results demonstrated that teacher
stress was related to job satisfaction and teaching efficacy, in particular in relation to the
implementation of SEL (Collie, Shapka & Perry, 2012).
Taken together, these results indicate that some key factors including stress, teaching
efficacy, job support, motivation, and job satisfaction influence teachers’ comfort and
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
11
willingness to promote social and emotional learning skills in Canadian classrooms. Compared
to the promotion of SRL, teaching SEL requires similar initiative and motivation to integrate
effectively into a classroom. Based on the literature, it is likely that these factors may also be
related to teachers’ use of tasks and practices associated with SRL. Therefore, the present study
examines how variables influencing teaching conditions, including those studied in the context
of SEL, will relate to the promotion of SRL. It is expected that many of the same patterns will
emerge, specifically those relating to how the effects of stress are mediated by experiences of
high self-efficacy and proper motivation.
Teacher Self-Efficacy
The term self-efficacy refers to the manner in which people construct their beliefs about
their abilities and competence to perform a given task (Bandura, 1997). Bandura’s social
cognitive theory demonstrates that one’s success in performing a task can be predicted by their
perceptions and expectations of efficacy, their confidence in succeeding, and their expectations
of the outcome (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy has been shown to influence how much effort one
puts into a task, their levels of perseverance when the task is challenging, and the amount of
distress they experience when a situation is demanding (Bandura, 1997). In relation to the
teaching profession, teacher self-efficacy has been positively associated with benefits targeting
both teachers and students. Teachers who report higher self-efficacy have been found to employ
more effective teaching practices. In addition, their students are more motivated to learn, have
greater satisfaction with their learning, and show greater overall academic achievement
(Bandura, 1997; Thoonen et al., 2012; Pan, 2014).
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
12
These effects are further exemplified in a study by Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2010) wherein
the researchers gathered electronic data from 2249 1st-10th grade teachers to measure teacher
self-efficacy. They employed their 24-item Norwegian Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (2007), as
well as perceived collective teacher efficacy, perceptions of external control, teacher burnout, job
satisfaction, and perceived school context. Results of the study demonstrated that teachers’ high
self-efficacy was predictive of positive relations with the parents of their students. In addition,
high levels of teacher self-efficacy were statistically significantly and negatively associated with
aspects of burnout, including emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. Furthermore, selfefficacy was found to be statistically significantly and positively associated with high levels of
job satisfaction.
These results indicate that self-efficacy is an important variable to consider within the
domain of teaching due to its impact on performance and wellbeing. Also, some research
(Klassen, 2010; Howard & Johnson, 2004) has indicated that self-efficacy mediates the
relationship between teacher stress and job satisfaction. The negative effects of stress on the job
satisfaction for teachers with perceptions of high self-efficacy is less than that of teachers with
perceptions of low self-efficacy (Klassen, 2010). Taken together, research indicates that selfefficacy is a vital factor in the consideration of teacher performance in the classroom. Teaching
efficacy may also be influential in the promotion of learning skills, including those necessary in
the delivery of instructional practices associated with SRL (IPSRL). This study examined teacher
self-efficacy as a mediator in the relationship between stress and IPSRL.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
13
Teacher Motivation
Motivation involves goal setting, self-efficacy and contextual attributions (e.g.,
perceptions of support from colleagues, administrative figures) which combine to influence
individuals’ pursuit and attainment of goals. Teacher goals to enhance student learning and
building a positive educational community also influence motivation (Ames & Ames, 1984).
Research has demonstrated that new teachers are motivated to enter the profession for particular
reasons, but often the source of these motives change and intensify as teachers continue through
their careers (Sinclair, 2008; Sinclair, Dowson, & McInerney, 2006). The sources of motivation
of new teachers initiating a career in the field tend to include how successful they imagine being
in the job, their attractions to the short hours, summers off, the opportunities to work with
children, the chance to be intellectually stimulated, and to fulfill altruistic motivations to teach
young children (Sinclair, 2008). New teachers are likely to be motivated by ease of entry into the
profession, dissatisfaction with previous jobs, or the financial benefits associated with a reliable
occupation (Sinclair, Dowson, & McInerney, 2006). Over time and with more experience,
teachers who continue in the profession cite motivation from being able to work with children,
from the inherent worth and importance of being a teacher, from being able to help others, and
other positive and internally-based motivating factors (Sinclair, Dowson, & McInerney, 2006).
A review of the literature indicates that teachers’ motivation is related to their teaching
performance. For example, Van Den Berghe and her colleagues (Van Den Berghe et al., 2014)
assessed 201 Belgian teachers by an online questionnaire. Four main variables were examined.
These include: work-related basic needs satisfaction, self-reported need-supportive teaching (i.e.,
self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and support from administration and colleagues), burnout, and
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
14
motivation to teach. Results of this study demonstrated four distinct domains of teacher
motivation pertaining to the quality and quantity of motivating factors (Van Den Berghe et al.,
2014). Teachers whose motivation is autonomously based and abundant in its extent were
positively related to basic need satisfaction and need-supportive teaching. These teachers’ selfreports were also negatively related to aspects of burnout, and reported greater personal
accomplishment in their line of work. It was found that in contrast to these types of teachers,
those who show poor quality and scarce motivating influences have comparatively worse basic
need satisfaction and need-supportive teaching, as well as an increased risk of burnout. In
comparing the established teacher profiles, results indicate that the difference in the quality of
motivation was more substantial than the difference in quantity of motivation when assessing
variables pertaining to teacher performance and wellbeing. Although there was some
differentiation, extremely motivated teachers were not significantly superior in their performance
and well-being compared to moderately motivated teachers. In contrast, teachers who maintained
intrinsically based reasons for motivation were more likely to show greater performance and
well-being compared to teachers who were motivated for extrinsic reasons (e.g., financial
security; Van Den Berghe et al., 2014). These results demonstrate that the type of motivation an
individual gains inspiration from (internal vs external) plays an integral role in their expression
of self-efficacy, the effects of stress, and other factors subject to influence.
Also, motivation has implications for teachers’ goals to continue in their profession
(Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011), and their effectiveness in supporting students’ classroom learning.
A longitudinal self-report questionnaire study of 806 teachers (433 of whom participated in the
follow up study; Fernet et al., 2012) measured various environmental factors relating to teachers’
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
15
positions at their particular schools, motivational factors which serve to perpetuate their interest
in their occupations, as well as aspects of stress and burnout. Results of the study revealed that
stress from workload, stress from student behaviour, poor administrative support, and lack of
resources are all negatively related to autonomous motivation which in turn predicts emotional
exhaustion (Fernet et al., 2012).
Taken together, studies demonstrate that teachers who have low levels of motivation for
teaching are likely to experience negative psychological outcomes (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011;
Van Den Berghe et al., 2014; Fernet et al., 2012). In turn, these effects have the potential to
reduce teaching efficacy, further expose the teachers to the negative effects of stress, and
subsequently inhibit student learning opportunities for SRL. In contrast, high levels of
motivation are related to positive psychological outcomes for teaching. High self-efficacy has
been shown to be a very strong motivating factor for teachers. Teachers with high self-efficacy
are more likely to show better planning and organization in the classroom, to be more open and
willing to experiment with new teaching methods, to work longer with struggling students, and
to intensify their efforts when their performance falls short. Highly motivated teachers are more
likely to collaborate with and accept support from colleagues, which is a known predictor of
organization, more certainty with novel teaching practices, and more comfort in experimenting
with new teaching strategies. These motivated teachers with high self-efficacy are also more
likely to engage in professional development to enhance instructional tactics and handling
situated, social, and differential learning (Thoonen et al., 2012). From this research, it is likely
that motivation will play a mediating role in the relationship between stress and the promotion of
self-regulation.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
16
Summary
As indicated in the literature described above, the initiative of teaching towards SRL is
beneficial for both the optimal development and engagement of learners, as well as for the
effectiveness of teachers in the classroom. Concurrently, teachers face high levels of stress and
an abundance of responsibilities which serve to inhibit their capacities to promote SRL. In
addition, teachers who report low self-efficacy are less likely to be effective in their teaching
styles, which may impact student learning and development. Along with impacts on
effectiveness in the classroom, there have also been results that indicate that low self-efficacy is
associated with negative impacts on the health and well-being of the teacher, which may in turn
magnify the effects of stress and other factors on performance. Similarly, low motivation has
been associated with variables which serve to negatively impact teaching performance and
teaching efficacy and in turn, inhibit the optimal delivery of IPSRL and other learning skills. To
date, research has not linked how stress, motivation, and self-efficacy are implicated in teachers’
use of practices associated with SRL. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore these
relationships and examine the teaching conditions under which SRL can be most effectively
promoted in classrooms.
Method
Design
A correlational research design was employed to explore relationships among teachers’
reports of their instructional practices associated with SRL, teacher stress, teacher self-efficacy,
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
17
and motivation for teaching. Specifically, this study posed two research questions and tested
three hypotheses:
1. What are the psychometric properties of the instructional practices associated with the
SRL questionnaire?
2. What is the magnitude of the relationships among instructional practices associated with
SRL, teacher stress, self-efficacy for teaching, and motivation for teaching?
a. It was expected that high levels of teaching stress would be associated with lower
levels of self-efficacy for teaching, lower levels of motivation for teaching, and fewer
instructional practices associated with SRL.
b. It was hypothesized that teachers who reported using more instructional practices
associated with SRL would report higher motivation for teaching, and higher selfefficacy.
c. It was anticipated that teacher self-efficacy and motivation would mediate the
relationship between teacher stress and instructional practices associated with SRL.
Participants
Data were collected from 87 Ontario elementary and high school teachers (79 females;
Mean Age = 45 years; SD = 9.64 years). Teachers indicated specializations in primary grades
(31%; K-Gr. 3), junior (16%; Gr. 4-6), and intermediate grades (16%; Gr. 7-8). In addition,
approximately 21% of teachers in this sample held positions in special education, music, or
French, or were in supply teaching positions. Participants reported 1 to 36 years of classroom
teaching experience (Mean years of experience = 16.6, SD = 8.85 years). Approximately 97% of
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
18
participants identified their ethnic background as Caucasian, and 3% of participants reported
their ethnicity as First Nations, Chinese, or Latin American.
Measures
Qualtrics Survey Tool. Qualtrics Survey Tool is a software program designed to create
and distribute electronic questionnaires using the internet. A researcher constructs individual
survey items and customizes each response scales so participants can complete the survey.
Qualtrics Survey Tool was employed in present study to create and distribute the electronic
questionnaire.
Demographic Information Questionnaire. (Appendix A) The demographic information
form in this study is comprised of six items. Questions asked participating teachers to indicate
their date of birth, grade level taught, sex, number of years of teaching experience, and their
ethnicity.
Instructional Practices for Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire. (Appendix B)
The Instructional Practices for Self-Regulated Learning Questionnaire (IPSRL; Hutchinson &
Serratore, 2014) is a new 30-item measure that was developed for this study. Questions assess
the extent to which teachers feel comfortable implementing instructional practices known to
provide opportunities for SRL. The items target six core practices associated with SRL:
providing learners with opportunities to complete academic tasks that are complex by design
(e.g., “How comfortable are you teaching students to revise their work to build off of previous
learning experiences?”; 5 items), make meaningful choices (e.g., “How comfortable are you
providing opportunities for students to choose who to work with?”; 4 items), control challenge
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
19
(e.g., “How comfortable are you letting students collaborate on a project?”; 3 items), seek
teacher and peer support (e.g., “How comfortable are you giving feedback as students are
completing tasks?”; 11 items), engage in self-evaluation (e.g., “How comfortable are you letting
children evaluate their own learning?”; 6 items), and participate in a community of learners (e.g.,
“How comfortable are you having class discussions?”; 1 item). Participants rate items using a
seven-point Likert response scale with endpoints ranging from 1 (Extremely Uncomfortable) to 7
(Extremely Comfortable). A composite mean score of IPSRL was calculated by summing the
scores from all items and dividing by the total number of items.
Teacher Motivation Questionnaire. The teacher motivation questionnaire consists of 20
items. Twelve items were adapted from Klassen & Chiu’s (2010) measure of teachers’
motivation. Items assess participants’ motivation to continue teaching in relation to their
confidence in the classroom (e.g., How much can you do to motivate students who show low
interest in school work?). Cronbach’s alpha was computed at (α = 0.85), indicating a good lower
bound estimate of reliability. Participants responded to items using a seven-point response scale
ranging from 1 (Next to Nothing) to 7 (A Great Deal).
The remaining eight items were employed to assess intrinsic and extrinsic workplace
motivation. These items were drawn from a measure of workplace motivation developed by
Moran, Diefendorff, & Zhi-Qiang, (2012). Four items measure intrinsic sources of workplace
motivation (e.g., “I am motivated to teach because I personally value helping children to learn”;
α = 0.63), and four items assess extrinsic workplace motivation (e.g., “I am motivated to teach
because of the pay”; α = 0.61). These eight items were included in the present study because they
have been shown to reliably predict workplace motivation, and add to the breadth of the
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
20
theoretical understanding in regards to what motivation refers to in the workplace and in the
classroom (Moran, Diefendorff, & Zhi-Qiang, 2012). Cronbach’s alpha of internal consistency
for overall motivation has been computed at (α = 0.89). Participants respond to items using a
seven-point response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). A
composite mean score of motivation was calculated by summing all items and dividing by the
total number of items.
Teacher Stress Questionnaire. The Teacher Stress Questionnaire includes 30 items
repurposed from Fimian’s (1984) study assessing six distinct stressors related to the profession
of teaching. These include: time management (e.g., “I easily over-commit myself”; 8 items; α =
0.77), work related stressors (e.g., “There is too much work to do”; 6 items; α = 0.87),
professional distress (e.g., “I lack recognition for the extra work I do”; 5 items; α = 0.80),
professional investment (e.g., “I lack control over decisions made about classroom matters”; 5
items; α = 0.81), along with the maintenance of discipline and motivation (e.eg, “I feel frustrated
because of discipline problems in my classroom”; 6 items; α = 0.83). Items were framed as a
statement where participants used the seven point response scale to express how noticeable or
applicable the statement is in their classroom. The response scale ranged from 1 (Strongly
Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Scores for each of the subscales were computed by aggregating
individual items within a subscale and dividing by the number of items in that subscale. A
composite mean score of teacher stress was computed by the summing items from each subscale
and dividing by the number of items.
Teacher Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. The Teacher Self-Efficacy Questionnaire
includes 27 items (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) which were adapted for this study. The items
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
21
measure how effective teachers feel they are at performing their duties, and the level of
confidence they have in the classroom. This measure consists of six components which
contribute to an overall indication of teacher self-efficacy. Five items measure teachers’
perceived ability to provide adequate instruction (e.g., “How certain are you that you can provide
instruction to all students, regardless of ability?”; α = 0.90). Five items assess teachers’
perceptions of their ability to adapt instruction to individual needs (e.g., “How certain are you
that you can adapt instruction to the needs of low-ability students while attending to the needs of
other students?”; α = 0.93). Four items are included to evaluate teachers’ self-confidence to
motivate their students (e.g., “How certain are you that you can support students to do their best
even when working with difficult problems?”; α = 0.90). Four items measure perceptions of
ability to maintain discipline (e.g., “How certain are you that you can get students with
behavioural problems to follow class rules?”; α = 0.91). Five items assess teachers’ selfconfidence in their abilities to cooperate with colleagues and parents (e.g., “How certain are you
that you can co-operate effectively with other teachers?”; α = 0.84). Finally, four items test
teachers’ perceptions of their abilities to cope with change (e.g., “How certain are you that you
can teach well even if you are told to use instructional methods that would not be your choice?”;
α = 0.85). Participants use the seven point response scale to indicate how certain they are that
they can perform the indicated ability. The response scale ranges from 1 (Not Certain At All) to
7 (Absolutely Certain). A composite mean score of teacher self-efficacy was computed by
aggregating individual item scores and dividing by the number of scale items.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
22
Procedures
Ethics approval was granted by Kings University College research ethics board. In
addition, the study was appraised by an Ontario based teacher’s union. In November 2014, the
researcher emailed this union describing this study and asking them to distribute a URL by
which teachers may complete the electronic survey. When participants accessed the survey using
the URL, their screen displayed an information letter and consent form. This letter described the
study and participants involvement in it. Teachers who indicated their willingness to participate
in the study submitted this response to the secure server and began the questionnaire. When
participants finished completing survey items, they had the opportunity to provide their email
address and be entered into a draw to win one of six $75 gift certificates.
Results
The results of this study are presented in order of the research questions and hypotheses
posed at the outset.
What are the psychometric properties of the IPSRL questionnaire?
MPlus version 7.11(L.K. Muthén & B.O. Muthén, 2012) was employed to conduct an
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on the data obtained from the 30-item IPSRL questionnaire.
The decision to employ EFA rather than confirmatory factor analysis was based on the purpose
of exploring the underlying structure of the measure and allowing the data to provide information
about the structure instead of imposing a structure on the data to fit the conceptual distinctions
made among the instructional practices linked with SRL. Furthermore, the underlying structure
of the IPSRL measure has not been assessed, making EFA a more suitable analysis for this
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
23
purpose. Two standard model fit indices (e.g., Root Mean Square Error of Approximation,
Comparative Fix Index) were used to compare the fit of a one, two, and three factor model (see
Table 1).
Results indicated that the 2-factor model provided an acceptable fit (RMSEA = 0.09 and
CFI = .94) of the IPSRL data (Costello & Osbourne, 2005). The rotated factor loadings from the
two-factor model are provided in Table 2. Previously established theoretical understandings of
self-regulation and SRL were used to judge whether the rotated factor loadings were more
reflective of the “Task Design” or “Support and Evaluation” factors. Items were required to have
a minimum factor loading value of 0.40 to be included in a factor (Costello & Osbourne, 2005).
The first factor, “Task Design”, contained all four items from the core SRL practices of
availability for choice, all 3 items from control over challenge, along with two from complex
tasks and two from self-evaluation. The second factor “Support and Evaluation” contained all
eleven items from the core practices of teacher support, four from self-evaluation, one from
communities of learning, and two from complex tasks (see Table 2). Results demonstrate the
teachers’ ratings generally distinguish between two main factors/variables reflective of
instructional practices associated with SRL.
Table 1
Fit Statistics from The One, Two, and Three Factor Models
Model
RMSEA (90% CI)
CFI
1 Factor
0.13 (0.12- 0.14)
.87
2 Factor
0.09 (0.08-0.10)
.94
3 Factor
0.07 (0.06-0.19)
.97
Note. RMSEA values of less than 0.10 imply an acceptable model fit and values of less than 0.05
imply a good fit. CFI values of 0.9 and higher indicate an acceptable model fit.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
24
Table 2
Factor Loadings from the 2 factor model EFA (N = 83)
Item
Factor 1 Factor 2
Loading Loading
How comfortable are you…
1.
Providing opportunities for students to choose who to work with?
0.71*
0.00
2.
Allowing students to choose where to work?
0.78*
-0.06
3.
Allowing students to pick a topic for a project?
0.79*
0.07
4.
Letting students independently complete tasks over one class
period?
0.91*
-0.21*
5.
Letting students collaborate on a project?
0.76*
0.20*
6.
Letting students do their own research on a project?
0.76*
-0.07
7.
Letting students choose where they work in the classroom?
0.78*
-0.08
8.
Allowing students to express their learning in different ways?
0.68*
0.20
9.
Using projects to integrate curriculum across various subjects for
learning?
0.55*
0.31*
10. Teaching a lesson over a period of 2-3 days?
0.39*
0.58*
11. Teaching students to revise work to incorporate previous learning
experiences?
0.41*
0.56*
12. Integrating multiple learning goals within a single project?
0.42*
0.51*
13. Providing individualized support to students to help them with their
work?
-0.01
0.67*
14. Prompting children’s attention to the task?
0.19*
0.84*
15. Giving hints to kids about strategies to complete tasks?
-0.12
0.90*
16. Giving feedback as students are completing tasks?
0.30*
0.60*
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
25
17. Allowing students to work together in partners?
0.47*
0.61*
18. Putting groups of children together to work?
0.34*
0.63*
19. Letting children help their peers?
0.37*
0.52*
20. Teaching children how to provide help to their peers?
0.41*
0.53*
21. Teaching children how to provide feedback to their peers about their
work?
0.39*
0.53*
22. Allowing students to share their strategies with other children?
0.19*
0.80*
23. Allowing students to share their ideas with other children?
0.24*
0.77*
24. Letting children evaluate their own learning?
0.44*
0.47*
25. Generating a rubric for children to evaluate their own learning?
0.23*
0.63*
26. Using students’ self-evaluations to inform your grading practices?
0.64*
0.16
27. Providing informal feedback to students as they are completing a
task?
-0.03
0.91*
28. Using students’ peer evaluations to inform tour grading practices?
0.56*
0.12
29
-0.09
0.83*
-0.01
0.74*
Conferencing with students about their learning progress?
30. Having class discussions?
Note. **p< 0.001, *p< 0.05
Based on the results of the EFA, Cronbach’s alpha of internal consistency was computed
for the two factors extracted from the IPSRL measure. Cronbach’s alpha for “Task Design” (M =
5.56, SD = 0.91) was calculated at 0.90. For “Support and Evaluation” (M = 6.13, SD = 0.69),
Cronbach’s alpha was computed at 0.94. As a complete construct with all items aggregated
together, it was found that the measure of IPSRL was quite reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of
0.95.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
26
What is the magnitude of the relationships among instructional practices associated
with SRL, teacher stress, self-efficacy for teaching, and motivation for teaching?
The descriptive statistics for the main study variables were computed and appear below
in Table 3. A series of Pearson product-moment correlations were computed to examine the
magnitude of the relationships among the main study variables (See Table 4). Hypothesis (2a)
predicted statistically significant and negative relations between aspects of teacher stress and
teacher motivation, self-efficacy, and levels of IPSRL. This hypothesis was fully supported by
the data. Results of the correlations indicate that aspects of stress including workplace stressors,
professional distress, discipline and motivation, and professional investment are statistically
significantly and negatively associated with teacher motivation. This indicates that those who
report higher levels of stress are likely to have lower motivation to teach. In addition, all five
subscales of teacher stress were found to be statistically significantly and negatively correlated
with teacher self-efficacy. These results demonstrate that individuals who perceive high rates of
stress are less likely to report high self-efficacy compared to those who experience lower rates of
stress. Finally, two aspects of stress including stress from the maintenance of discipline and
motivation, and stress from professional investment are statistically significantly and negatively
related to rates of IPSRL. These results demonstrate the direct effects wherein teachers who
experience less stress are more likely to promote opportunities for SRL in their classrooms. The
results discussed above provide full support for hypothesis (2a).
Hypothesis (2b) was also fully supported. SRL and teacher motivation were positively
and statistically significantly correlated indicating that teachers who are highly motivated to do
their work are more likely to promote opportunities for SRL in their classrooms compared to
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
27
those who are poorly motivated. In addition, SRL and self-efficacy were found to be statistically
significantly and positively correlated. Teachers who have confidence in their professional
abilities and have high self-efficacy are more likely to provide SRL opportunities compared to
those with low self-efficacy. As demonstrated by these results, hypothesis (2b) was supported by
the data in this study.
In addition to the stated hypotheses, it has been shown that self-efficacy and motivation
for teaching strongly correlate in a statistically significantly and positive manner. Teachers who
are highly motivated to continue their work are more likely to have high confidence in their
abilities and express high self-efficacy compared to those with poor motivation.
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for the Main Study Variables (N =83)
Variable
M (SD)
Min to Max
1. Instructional practices for SRL
5.92 (0.70)
3.93-6.97
2. Time management
5.47 (0.91)
2.25-7.00
3. Workplace stressors
5.46 (1.20)
1.00-7.00
4. Professional distress
4.16 (1.33)
1.20-6.60
5. Professional investment
3.92 (1.35)
1.40-6.60
6. Discipline & motivation stress
5.10 (1.21)
1.67-7.00
7. Self-efficacy
4.89 (0.82)
2.00-6.67
8. Motivation
5.22 (0.56)
3.75-6.55
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
28
Table 4
Intercorrelations among the Study Variables (N = 83)
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Time management
Workplace stressors
Professional distress
Discipline & motivation stress
Professional investment
Motivation
Self-Efficacy
Instructional practices for
SRL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
.79**
.26*
.42**
.22*
-.12
-.29**
-.09
.28*
.63**
.41**
-.35**
-.38**
-.14
.34**
.62**
-.33**
-.27*
-.18
.51**
-.41**
-.39**
-.26*
-.51**
-.38**
-.26*
.61**
.50**
.61**
Note. Effect sizes should be interpreted such that a large effect size (r = .5), b = medium effect
size (r = .3), c = small effect size (r = .1), **p < .001, * p < .05
Do teacher self-efficacy and motivation mediate the relationship between teacher
stress and instructional practices associated with SRL?
A multiple mediation analysis was conducted using SPSS version 22 using the Preacher
and Hayes (2008) macro for multiple mediation. The model tested is displayed below in Figure
1. First, the predictor variable of teacher stress is statistically significantly and negatively
associated with the criterion variable of IPSRL (β = -0.20, r (81) = -2.29, p = 0.025). It was also
found that teacher stress is negatively related to the mediator variable self-efficacy (β = -0.43, r
(81) = -4.72, p < 0.001). Results demonstrate that self-efficacy is related to levels of IPSRL (β =
-0.44, r (81) = 4.26, p = 0.001). In addition to these effects of self-efficacy, it was also found that
the predictor variable of stress was related to a second mediating variable of motivation (β = 0.31, r (81) = -5.02, p < 0.001). The results indicate that motivation is significantly and
positively related to IPSRL (β = -0.30, r (81) = 1.99, p = 0.049). Because the a-path and b-paths
of both mediator variables were significant, mediation analyses were tested using the
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
29
bootsrapping method with bias-corrected confidence estimates (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). In this
study, the 95% confidence interval of the indirect effects was obtained with 1000 bootstrap
resamples. The mediating roles of self-efficacy and motivation in the relation between stress and
IPSRL (β = -0.20, r (81) = -2.29, p = 0.025, CI = 0.41 to 0.18) were confirmed by the results of
the meditation analysis. In addition, when the mediators of self-efficacy and motivation were
controlled for, the direct effect of stress on IPSRL became non-significant (β = 0.08, r (81) =
0.98, p = 0.330) thus indicating partial, multiple mediation (see table 5).
Figure 1. Multiple mediation analysis of stress predicting opportunities for SRL
**p< 0.001, *p< 0.05
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the direct and indirect relationships among
aspects of teacher stress, motivation, and self-efficacy, along with their individual and combined
effects on the promotion of SRL in classrooms. The results of the study have found that stress,
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
30
motivation, and self-efficacy are all important factors to consider in the assessment of a teachers’
capability and willingness to provide opportunities for SRL in their classes.
Results demonstrate that items in the IPSRL questionnaire reflect a 2-factor construct of
SRL. In this study, teacher ratings distinguished between two factors: those related to “Task
Design” and those related to “Support and Evaluation”. In relation to the six core practices in the
promotion of SRL, the factor of task design includes items which assess the extent to which
teachers offer their students meaningful choice, control over challenges, access to complex tasks,
and the chance to have their self-evaluations included in grading practices. This factor is useful
in determining what sort of tasks are beneficial for the promotion of SRL, and in what manner
the tasks ought to be presented to the students in the effort to provide opportunities for the
development of self-regulation. The second factor of support and evaluation was comprised of
items focusing on the extent to which students are given support from teachers and peers,
opportunities to evaluate their own learning, chances to engage in communities of learning, and
access complex tasks which serve to build off of previous learning. This factor focuses on
establishing opportunities for children to reflect on previous work and to gain access to proper
support in order to apply these reflections to better their future learning. From this exploratory
factor analysis, we have found preliminary evidence of good psychometric properties of this
measure of IPSRL which is the first of its kind to be found in the academic literature.
These results corroborate findings from Hutchinson (2013) who found that instructional
practices associated with SRL are overlapping and often, complementary. For example, for a
student to succeed when offered access to a complex task, proper support from a teacher is
necessary. Without one or the other, SRL may not be effectively improved in the student. Given
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
31
these findings, teachers need to learn how to teach towards SRL and to attend to these practices
as a sophisticated set of interrelated teaching skills. The results presented in this study
demonstrate that instructional practices associated with SRL overlap to maximize learners’
development of sophisticated forms of self-regulation.
These findings uniquely contribute to the academic literature in so far as no other
research initiative has established a factor model for the construct of IPSRL. Results from the
EFA in this study provide promising evidence supporting the use of the IPSRL questionnaire
(Hutchinson & Serratore, 2014) as a unified and reliable tool with good psychometric properties
for use in future research. Along with the support from previous research (Perry, Hutchinson, &
Thauberger, 2007; Perry, 1998) maintaining the wide-ranging benefits which SRL provides to
both students and teachers, the current study provides a reliable method to measure IPSRL for
the use of examining where and how teachers are able to promote opportunities for SRL.
Consistent with the stated hypotheses as well as with the findings of previous literature,
results of this study illustrate that aspects of teacher stress are statistically significantly and
negatively related to levels of self-efficacy (Howard & Johnson, 2004) and motivation to teach
(Van Den Berghe et. al, 2014). Those who are highly stressed are likely to report low selfefficacy and poor motivation to teach. This study also found that dimensions of teacher stress are
negatively related to levels of IPSRL. Teachers who report higher stress are less likely to
promote self-regulated learning in the classroom. Correspondingly, those teachers who report
higher levels of IPSRL have been found to report lower levels of stress associated with
disciplining and motivating students. This finding exemplifies the benefits of the promotion of
SRL not only for students, but for teachers as well. These result reflect the findings of previous
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
32
literature which indicate that high stress is related to poorer teacher self-regulatory patterns as
well as poorer quality of instruction (Klusmann et. al, 2008). Further results indicate that both
self-efficacy and motivation are statistically significantly and positively related to levels of
IPSRL and to one another. These results fully support both hypothesis (2a) and (2b) which
predicted the direct effects among these variables.
Results of the multiple mediation analysis confirmed that both self-efficacy and
motivation partially mediated the relationship between teacher stress and levels of IPSRL, thus
fully supporting hypothesis (2c). Those teachers who report high self-efficacy are likely to
experience less of an impact on their promotion of SRL by the effects of stress compared to
those who have poor self-efficacy. Simultaneously, the promotion of SRL in those who report
high motivation to teach is less impacted by the presence of stress than it is for those with poor
motivation. This finding is a new contribution to the academic literature and expresses the
integral role of stress, motivation, and self-efficacy in the contextual circumstances wherein the
promotion of SRL is optimized for teachers. As noted, recent changes to the curriculum structure
encourages the integration of SRL practices in classrooms (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2014;
BC Ministry of Education, 2014; Ontario Curriculum, 2013; Growing Success, 2010). In
implementing these initiatives, the results of the current study cannot be ignored. Teacher stress
has been shown to reduce the effectiveness of teachers to promote SRL. Beyond this, being
properly motivated to teach and having high self-efficacy have been shown to be protective
factors within this relationship. To acquire the desired results in classrooms in terms of the
promotion of SRL, educational administration must pay attention to and work towards the
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
33
bettering of teacher’s levels of stress, motivation, and self-efficacy in order to determine if their
initiatives will be effectively and optimally implemented.
Limitations
Some limitations should be acknowledged when interpreting the results of this study. A
first limitation includes the sample size and sample characteristics which limit the
generalizability of the study’s findings. To elaborate, the sample of teachers who participated in
this study was small (N = 87) and the ethnic composition of teachers may not generalize well to
other samples of teachers in urban or rural areas. Second, teachers who participated in this study
were self-selected and may have had an unrepresentative interest in promoting SRL, or have
been experiencing a high level of stress, so their responses to the measures employed in this
study may not be generalizable to a larger population of teachers. A third and final limitation of
this study recognizes the plausibility of single-source bias.
Implications
The results found in this study serve to suggest that the psychological outlook of the
teacher is vitally important when assessing the potential for SRL to be implemented in the
classroom. Practical implications offered by this research include the development of the
theoretical understanding of how SRL is delivered, suggestions for educational administration in
their implementation of new classroom initiatives, support for teachers and their understanding
of SRL, and the establishment of a reliable construct of IPSRL for use in future research. A
gamut of information in previous literature indicates the benefits which accompany the
implementation of IPSRL, but recognize that teachers are often unable or unprepared to
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
34
effectively implement these practices in their classrooms (Perry, 1998; Perry & VandeKamp,
2002; Samarapungavan, Patrick, & Mantzicopolous, 2011; Perry, Phillips, & Hutchinson, 2006).
In terms of practical implications, results of this study serve to validate the assumptions made in
previous literature which suggest that mediating variables effecting teachers serve to inhibit the
effective promotion of SRL. Beyond this, educational administration can refer to this study to
inform their decisions regarding the implementation of new initiatives and programs. Teachers’
effectiveness to integrate and promote instructional practices for self-regulated learning is
effected by their levels of stress, self-efficacy, and motivation. Future initiatives must take into
consideration the psychological competencies of their teachers when evaluating whether the
proposed new practice can be effectively implemented, if it will be successful in improving
learning, and if it will be hindered by the effects of teacher stress, motivation, and self-efficacy.
In addition, future research initiatives can utilize the construct of IPSRL which this study has
developed and provided supporting evidence for.
Future Research
The findings presented in this study point to future work on SRL in at least three core
areas. The construct of IPSRL developed in this study can be employed to examine changes in
teachers’ SRL and students’ SRL over time. The effectiveness of implementing practices
associated with SRL can be measured and evaluated using longitudinal research designs.
Secondly, it is recommended that future research initiatives employ mixed method approaches in
order to measure children’s SRL and teacher’s promotion of SRL in classrooms to gain a more
comprehensive and definitive understanding of the construct. Finally, there is a need for further
psychometric validation studies to be conducted in the assessment of SRL and the instructional
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
practices associated with the promotion of SRL in order to support these constructs. Since this
study is the first to examine the psychometric properties of SRL, further assessments including
exploratory factor analyses on larger and more diverse samples, as well as confirmatory factor
analyses must be completed in order to establish a reliable and accurate understanding of the
construct.
35
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
36
Appendix A
What is your date of birth? (dd/mm/yyyy)
What grade(s) are you currently teaching? If you are currently teaching a split grade, select all
grades that apply. (High school teachers please continue to the next question)












Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
I am a substitute teacher
I hold an alternative teaching position involving multiple grades (Ex. Elementary French
teachers, music teachers etc.)
I am not currently working.
High school teachers, please select the most relevant subject area to your teaching specialization
(Elementary school teachers, please skip this question and continue below)










English (1)
Math (2)
History (3)
Geography (4)
Science (5)
Religious studies (6)
Physical education (7)
Technologies (8)
Family studies/Home economics (9)
Other (please specify) (10) ____________________
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
What is your sex?




Female (1)
Male (2)
Prefer not to say (3)
Other (4)
How many years of experience do you have working as a teacher? ______
How would you identify your ethnic background (check one or more of the following)?














White (1)
Aboriginal/First Nations/ Metis (2)
Chinese (3)
South Asian (4)
Black (5)
Filipino (6)
Latin American (7)
Southeast Asian (8)
Arab (9)
West Asian (10)
Japanese (11)
Korean (12)
Pacific Islander (13)
Other (PLEASE SPECIFY) (14) ____________________
37
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
38
Appendix B
How comfortable are you providing opportunities for students to choose who to work with?
How comfortable are you allowing students to choose where to work?
How comfortable are you allowing students to pick a topic for a project?
How comfortable are you letting students independently manage time to complete tasks over one
class period?
How comfortable are you letting students collaborate on a project?
How comfortable are you letting students do their own research on a project?
How comfortable are you letting students choose where they work in the classroom?
How comfortable are you allowing students to express their learning in different ways? (e.g., To
write a story, draw pictures, take photos, make posters, etc.)
How comfortable are you using projects to integrate curriculum from across various subjects as
the basis for learning?
How comfortable are you teaching a lesson over a period of 2-3 days? (ex. Teach the process of
photosynthesis in sections over a number of days)
How comfortable are you teaching students to revise their work to incorporate previous learning
experiences?
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
How comfortable are you you integrating multiple learning goals within a single project? (ex.
Social skills, multiple academic learning goals etc.)
How comfortable are you providing individualized support to students to help them with their
work and learning?
How comfortable are you prompting children’s attention to the task?
How comfortable are you giving hints to kids about strategies to complete tasks?
How comfortable are you giving feedback as students are completing tasks?
How comfortable are you allowing students to work together in partners?
How comfortable are you putting groups of children together to work?
How comfortable are you letting children help their peers?
How comfortable are you teaching children how to provide help to their peers?
How comfortable are you teaching children how to provide feedback to their peers about their
work and learning?
How comfortable are you allowing students to share their strategies with other children?
How comfortable are you allowing students to share their ideas with other children?
How comfortable are you letting children evaluate their own learning?
How comfortable are you generating a rubric for children to evaluate their own learning?
39
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
How comfortable are you using students’ self-evaluations to inform your grading practices?
How comfortable are you providing informal feedback to students about their learning as they
are completing a task?
How comfortable are you using students’ peer evaluations to inform your grading practices?
How comfortable are you conferencing with students about their learning progress?
How comfortable are you having class discussions?
40
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
41
References
Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1984). Systems of student and teacher motivation: Toward a qualitative
definition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 535-556.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning
environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In Schauble, Leona, Glaser, &
Robert`s (eds.). Innovations in learning: New environments for education. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing. Pp. 289-325.
Collie, R., Shapka, J., & Perry, C. (2012). School climate and social-emotional learning:
Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1184-1204.
Collie, R., Shapka, J., & Perry, C. (2011). Predicting teacher commitment: The impact of school
climate and social-emotional learning. Psychology in the Schools, 48(10), 1034-1048.
Costello, A., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment,
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
42
Research & Evaluation, 10(7). 1-8.
Fernet, C., Guay, F., Senecal, C., & Austin, S. (2012). Predicting intraindividual changes in
teacher burnout: The role of perceived school environment and motivational factors.
Fimian, M. (1984). The development of an instrument to measure occupational stress in teachers:
The teacher stress inventory. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57(4). 227-293.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 514-525.
Geving, A. (2007). Identifying the types of student and teacher behaviours associated with
teacher stress. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5). 624-640.
Growing success: Assessment, evaluation, and reporting in Ontario schools. (2010). Retrieved
from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/growSuccess.pdf
Harris, G. (2011). Individual stress management coursework in Canadian teacher preparation
programs. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(4), 104-117.
Howard, S., & Johnson, B. (2004). Resilient teachers: Resisting stress and burnout. Social
Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 7(4). 399-420.
Hutchinson, L. (2013). Classrooms for context for self-regulation in school. Unpublished
dissertation.
Hutchinson, L., & Serratore, N. (2014). The Instructional Practices for Self-Regulated Learning
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
43
Questionnaire. Unpublished measure.
Klassen, R. (2010). Teacher Stress: The mediating role of collective efficacy beliefs. The Journal
of Educational Research, 103(5). 342-350.
Klassen, R., & Chiu, M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher
gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3).
741-756.
Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Trautwein, U., Lustke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Teachers’
occupational well-being and quality of instruction: The important role of self-regulatory
patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3). 702-715.
Kryiacou, C. (2001). Teacher Stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review, 78(1),
28.
McCaslin, M. (2006). Self-regulated learning and classroom management: Theory, research, and
considerations for classroom practice. In Evertson, & Weinstein (eds.). Handbook of
classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing. Pp. 223-252.
Mearns, J., & Cain, J. (2003). Relationships between teachers’ occupational stress and their
burnout and distress: Roles of coping and negative mood regulation expectancies.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
44
Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An International Journal, 16(1), 71-82.
Moos, D., & Ringdal, A. (2012). Self-regulated learning in the classroom: A literature review on
the teachers’ role. Education Research International, 2012, 1-15.
Moran, C., Diefendorff, J., Kim, T., & Zhi-Qiang, L. (2012). A profile approach to selfdetermination theory motivations at work. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 81(3). 354363.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Authors.
Ontario curriculum: Social studies, history, and geography revised. (2013). Retrieved from
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/sshg18curr2013.pdf
Pan, Yi-Hsiang. (2014). Relationships among teachers’ self-efficacy and students’ motivation,
atmosphere, and satisfaction in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 33(1), 68-92.
Perry, N. (1998). Young children`s self-regulated learning and contexts that support it. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 715-729.
Perry, N. (Accepted 2013). Classroom processes that support self-regulation in young children.
British Journal of Educational Psychology
Perry, N., Hutchinson, L., & Thauberger, C. (2008). Talking about teaching self-regulated
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
45
learning: Scaffolding student teacher’s development and use of practices that promote
self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 97-108.
Perry, N., Phillips, L., & Hutchinson, L. (2006). Mentoring student teachers to support selfregulated learning. The Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 237-254.
Perry, N., VandeKamp, K., Mercer, L., & Nordby, C. (2002). Investigating teacher-student
interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 5-15.
Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods,
40(3), 879-891.
Samarapungavan, A., Patrick, H., & Mantzicopoulos. (2011). What kindergarten students learn
in inquiry-based science classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 29(4), 416-470.
Sinclair, C. (2008). Initial and changing student teacher motivation and commitment to teaching.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 79-104.
Sinclair, C., Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. (2006). Motivation to teach: Psychometric
perspectives across the first semester of teacher education. Teacher College Record,
108(6), 1132-1154.
Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
46
factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611-625.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Norwegian teacher self-efficacy scale.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t29448-000
Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of
relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059-1069.
Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching
profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional
exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(6), 1029-1038.
Steinhardt, M., Jaggars, S., Faulk, K., & Gloria, C. (2011). Chronic work stress and depressive
symptoms: Assessing the mediating role of teacher burnout. Stress and Health: Journal
of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 27(5), 420-429.
Thoonen, E., Sleegers, P., Oort, F., Peetsma, T., & Geijsel, F. (2011). How to improve teaching
practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and leadership practices.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 496-536.
Turner, J. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for
literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 410-441.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SRL
Van Den Berghe, L., Soenens, B., Aelterman, N., Cardon, G., Tallir, I., & Haerens, L (2014).
Within-person profiles of teachers’ motivation to teach: Associations with need
satisfaction at work, need-supportive teaching, and burnout. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 15(4), 407-417.
47